Influence of Bubble Size Distribution on the Echogenicity of Ultrasound Contrast Agents: A Study of SonoVue™

Gorce J-M, Arditi M, Schneider M. Influence of bubble size distribution on the echogenicity of ultrasound contrast agents: A study of SonoVue™. Invest Radiol 2000;35:661–671. RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES.To study the relative contributions of different bubble size classes to SonoVue™’s echogenicity in fundamental acoustic imaging modes. SonoVue™ is a contrast agent, previously known as BR1, with a bubble size distribution extending from approximately 0.7 to 10 &mgr;m. METHODS.A model for the acoustic response of SonoVue™ was determined and validated for a set of experimental data. This model was used to simulate the acoustic response of a standard batch of SonoVue™ as the sum of responses of nonoverlapping bubble size classes. RESULTS.The simulation was first validated for a standard SonoVue™ bubble size distribution. When this distribution was considered as five size classes with equal numbers of bubbles, it was found that bubbles smaller than 2 &mgr;m accounted for 60% of the total number but contained only 5% of the total gas volume. The simulation results indicated marked differences in the acoustic contributions from these classes, with 80% of the acoustic efficacy provided by bubbles 3 to 9 &mgr;m in diameter. The study also compared bubble distributions in number, surface, and volume, with the distribution computed in terms of acoustic efficacy. CONCLUSIONS.This study shows why bubble volume is a much better indicator of SonoVue™’s efficacy than is bubble count. A low threshold in diameter was found for SonoVue™ microbubbles at approximately 2 &mgr;m, under which size bubbles do not contribute appreciably to the echogenicity at medical ultrasound frequencies.

[1]  L. Hoff,et al.  Oscillations of polymeric microbubbles: effect of the encapsulating shell , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  L. Hoff,et al.  Acoustic properties of NC100100 and their relation with the microbubble size distribution. , 1999, Investigative radiology.

[3]  K W Ferrara,et al.  Direct video-microscopic observation of the dynamic effects of medical ultrasound on ultrasound contrast microspheres. , 1998, Investigative radiology.

[4]  N de Jong,et al.  Acoustic modeling of shell-encapsulated gas bubbles. , 1998, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[5]  A. Broillet,et al.  Assessment of myocardial perfusion by intermittent harmonic power Doppler using SonoVue, a new ultrasound contrast agent. , 1998, Investigative radiology.

[6]  J. G. Mottley,et al.  The measurement of backscatter coefficient from a broadband pulse-echo system: a new formulation , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[7]  Lars Hoff,et al.  Acoustic properties of shell-encapsulated, gas-filled ultrasound contrast agents , 1996, 1996 IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium. Proceedings.

[8]  L. Hoff Acoustic properties of ultrasonic contrast agents , 1996 .

[9]  G. Haar The Acoustic Bubble , 1996 .

[10]  Feng Yan,et al.  BR1: A New Ultrasonographic Contrast Agent Based on Sulfur Hexafluoride-Filled Microbubbles , 1995, Investigative radiology.

[11]  Charles C. Church,et al.  The effects of an elastic solid surface layer on the radial pulsations of gas bubbles , 1995 .

[12]  Charles T. Lancée,et al.  Higher harmonics of vibrating gas-filled microspheres. Part one: simulations , 1994 .

[13]  N de Jong,et al.  Ultrasound scattering properties of Albunex microspheres. , 1993, Ultrasonics.

[14]  N de Jong,et al.  Absorption and scatter of encapsulated gas filled microspheres: theoretical considerations and some measurements. , 1992, Ultrasonics.

[15]  H. Medwin,et al.  Counting bubbles acoustically: a review , 1977 .